• Review of the year on the blog

    Well, everyone else is doing it so I might as well look back over the last year and pick out a few highlights from the blog.

    I began the year by declaring that The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Pope and defended him from other people making demands that he rebuke the Nigerian Church. I don’t want an Archbishop of Canterbury going around rebuking anyone. (Though I did think that the Archbishop of York might be better placed to do some rebuking).

    A big part of the first part of the year was taken up with me standing in an election to become the Rector of the University of Glasgow. I didn’t win in the end but was a well placed second. The big surprise for me was that a good pro-Independence candidate did not do as well as I expected – the first indication for me that things were not going to go the Independence way later in the year.

    I wrote a Memo to Holyrood re School Chaplains back in January too, which was widely read. I suspect that the days of school chaplains are probably numbered. I also suspect that might be a good thing.

    I also had a go at those in Holyrood telling them not to shake hands with anti-gay politicians from Africa during the Commonwealth Games.

    My Radio 2 debut came this year with a jolly time on early one Sunday morning in February with Hardeep Singh Kohli. My piece was all about rainbows.

    Quite a lot of people wanted to comment on a post where I asked whether Jesus was nice to women.

    During Lent I declared I was not giving social media and didn’t understand those who do.

    Some people were amused by the number of different cures I had tried for what ailed me in the spring. However I wasn’t pleased to have bronchitis for 12 weeks or so.

    I did manage to get myself into the pulpit to preach the resurrection at Easter. Something I always enjoy. The video of the Palm Sunday procession was a record of another of the delights of Holy Week this year.

    Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury got a lot of attention for a dreadful phone-in he did on the radio.  I first had a go at him with a post about Understanding the Justin Welby Controversy and then addressed him more directly with You Condemn It Archbishop.

    When you encounter violence, you condemn it, Archbishop. When you encounter murder, you condemn it, Archbishop. When you encounter homophobia, you condemn it, Archbishop.

    You don’t appease it, Justin Welby. You condemn it.

    Why should any of us in any land expect anything less of you?

    Incidentally, I don’t think Justin Welby has done very well this year even given that his job is impossible. He started making the same mistakes that Rowan Williams made before him.

    I took a strong view on the Red Road Flats controversy and was quoted on the front page of the Herald for doing so. And we won in the end – the flats were not demolished during the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games.

    A terrible low for the city was the Art School fire in May which I witnessed and videoed at first hand.

    Lots of people seemed to appreciate a post on Where to Get Started With the Bible.

    General Synod came and went. This year’s was one of the poorest I remember I think. We don’t seem to trust ourselves in synod to decide anything, the bishops gave another inane presentation on their corporate life and I ended up posting about How not to have a synodical discussion. (This kind of thing ought to be a warning to the Church of England but it won’t be).

    I decided to give an Alternative Queen’s Speech because I continue to think I know better than Her Majesty’s government. Incidently, one of those ideas is one that I think I may take forward in the new year and ought to be giving those who manage church budgets the willies.

    My government will introduce legislation to ensure that charitable status is removed from all charities which discriminate on the basis of the Protected Characteristics of other equality legislation. For the avoidance of doubt, religious charities which campaign against other protected characteristics in terms of age, gender, sexuality etc will automatically lose their charitable status.

    I think that is achievable in 7 years or so and might well be worth throwing some campaigning energy behind.

    Peter Tatchell came to St Mary’s and gave a very interesting couple of talks. One bit of one of them drew national attention when he talked about Outing Bishops.

    I thought that Archbishop Carey was wrong and not for the first time. This time it was a different topic to the usual though – Assisted Suicide. I’m against, he was in favour. (And the fact that most people would have guessed it to be the other way round proves this is a different debate to other debates).

    Another thing which gained national attention was a spat with the Church of England’s Communications Director. Here’s the Guardian’s take:

    The Church of England’s director of communications communicated himself into a corner last week, after a well-meaning but homophobic tweet about Vicky Beeching, the gospel singer who’s just come out as gay. The Rev Arun Arora tweeted that Vicky was welcome in church because “we are all broken”. In a cringe-inducing exchange with Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, @RevArun defended his comparison of Vicky’s sexuality to the brokenness of humanity. Holdsworth tweeted: “It would be racist to say that black people are welcome in church because all are broken. It is homophobic to suggest same re LGBT.” The the reverend went strangely quiet.

    Arun Arora is still in post but seems to be tweeting a good deal less than he once did.

    I turned down the chance to audition for Big Brother. No, really…

    I took the view that Travelodge was right to remove Gideon Bibles from their rooms and that made quite a few people very cross indeed.

    One of the best things I preached all year was a wee homily for Derek and Nelson’s nuptials:

    The truth is, for a lot of us who grew up as gay people, this was completely outside our expectations. We never expected to be able to celebrate a partnership in this way. It just wasn’t conceivable.

    Yet here we all are.

    I don’t know whether you believe in miracles. But for some of us here today, we have watched things change over the last few years. They have changed in ways that once we could never have believed. Those of us who are gay have watched water change into wine in front of our very eyes. And we have begun to drink. And the wine tastes absolutely wonderful.

    Another post which drew some comment and no little amount of criticism was 10 things Evangelicals don’t tell you at first.

    I came out against Independence. (Which pleased and infuriated people in equal measure). And I had this to say the day after the vote.

    Yet another post to stir things up was Beware of the Celibate. I think there’s a good deal more to discuss in relation to that and in case anyone was wondering, I’m entirely unrepentant for publishing it. Celibacy spells trouble just as often as it spells freedom and we need to be able to discern the difference.

    Although initially very dubious, I loved having my picture taken with an owl.

    I came out in favour of retaining the option to out hypocritical gay bishops. I still think  it must remain and option.

    My six reasons that cathedrals are doing well was a post that did well for comments and for sparking other conversations. My assertion that we don’t have visitors at St Mary’s was part of my own reflection on why we are doing OK at the moment locally.

    I was named as someone on the Independent’s Rainbow List (the new name for the Pink List) and enjoyed going to London for the party associated with the event.

    At the end of November, quite a few people were interested in my asking whether Jesus chose the wrong brother.

    Towards the end of the year I’ve been posting longer articles than I did earlier in the year and have seen visitor numbers to the blog rise sharply as a consequence. An example of that is The Peace Unity and Order of the Church which I posted after the College of Bishops’ disastrous statement in December. That statement has seriously diminished the authority of the bishops and it remains to be seen whether they can change the tone of this conversation significantly enough to regain it. The emergence of 50 clergy and lay readers who have referred to the bishops acting outwith their moral and canonical authority is hugely significant and we don’t know yet what that means in an Episcopally ordered church.

    Rounding off the year, my post on the Comites Christi as gay icons has received quite a lot of attention and, as with other posts above, received a lot of commen on social media which is where much of the conversation takes place these day.

    During the year I’ve also said goodbye on my blog to Jim Cottar, Michael Hare Duke and Bill Fishman. May they all rest in peace. (If that is what any of them want to do in the afterlife).

    It is has been a good year for me though not without its ups and downs. I’m happy in my ministry in St Mary’s whilst also often feeling ashamed of the church I belong to. However, I sense a shift in attitudes that I think will grow in the coming year. There are many who want better leadership than we are currently receiving in the Scottish Episcopal Church and I’ve been delighted to see the re-emergence of blogging as a significant factor in our life together. I end the year hopeful and look forward to what lies ahead.

     

     

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

  1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

    It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

    Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.

      The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.

      I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.

      Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.

  2. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

  3. Chris Hansen Avatar
    Chris Hansen

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

    The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.

      Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.

      Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.

      And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.

  4. FakePete Avatar
    FakePete

    I feel very angry reading that.

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Dear Kelvin

    Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

    What would you do if you were Primus?

    The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

    Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

    The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

    For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

    All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

    Steven

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.

      The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.

      I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.

      The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:

      1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.

      2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.

      3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.

      4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.

      However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.

      I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.

      I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.

      I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.

      If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.

      If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.

      Does that answer the question?

      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        Yes, it does rather. Thanks.

        For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).

        We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!

        Steven

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts